class dimensions of social networks in russia anna-maria salmi aleksanteri institute university of...

Class Dimensions of Social Networks in Russia

Anna-Maria SalmiAleksanteri InstituteUniversity of Helsinki

Who benefits from networks?

• is a question that will be addressed in the last part of my presentation

• First some other questions need to be asked:

• 1. What is the connection between inequality and networks?

• 2. Why is there so little research on the subject?

Networks and inequality

• The Soviet Union/Russia characterised as “society of networks”

• Inequality, though dramatically increased, was always existent

• How are networks and inequality connected?

Social networks and inequality

• Inequality Networks– unequal access to networks

• Networks Inequality– networks may further reproduce

inequalities

Paradox: important, but…

• Yet we have very little information about networks and inequality

• My presentation has three parts:• One: How were networks and inequality

connected in the Soviet Union?• Two: Why has there been so little attention to

networks & inequality in contemporary Russia?

• Three: What dimensions of class inequalities can

qualitative network analysis reveal?

Part One

looks at how inequality and networks were connected in

the Soviet Union

A general consensus exists that

• Socialist societies were “societies of networks”– Wedel (1986), Sampson (1986), Srubar

(1991), Ledeneva (1998) and the “second economy” literature (e.g. Grossman 1977, Millar 1985)

• Money not sufficient as means of exchange, networks the capital that mattered

• economy of shortages, lack of (good-quality) goods, services, information

• A range of consequences: – consumption & problem-solving

personalised– strict divisions (one’s own & them)– particularistic (not general) reciprocity

& trust– functional and dysfunctional, etc.

What we do not know that well

• is how networks and inequality (in terms of class) were connected in socialism

• Several claims have been made:

Inequality networks

• First claim:– traditional hierarchy (working class

disfavoured)

• Example: medicine

Inequality networks

• Second claim:– reversed hierarchy (working class favoured)– Steven Sampson: Redistribution networks had

the effect that “status hierarchies are turned upside down” (1986: 58)

• Example: Berdahl on the East German village of Kella (1999):– some working-class people became “elite”,

“patrons” or “notables” in the village

Inequality networks

• Third claim: – class in a sense irrelevant, the question

is: who is useful? – one needs to think of the utility of

occupations (Ledeneva 1998)– utility does not follow class lines

Inequality networks

• Fourth claim:– everybody is useful – “Everybody who has received a favor

somewhere is able to return it somewhere else” (Kornai 1980:77)

– “Every adult member of society is in a position to do some kind of favour for someone else” (Millar 1985: 702-703)

– queueing, if nothing else

To sum up: Unequal access to networks

• is a question that remains unclear• context-bound• other relevant categories too

(related to gender, place/locality, ethnicity)

• the question has been seriously understudied

Networks inequality

• Is it or is it not a zero-sum game?• Not always: allocation of resources

from (military) production to (civil) consumption (Ledeneva 1998)

• But usually yes: redistribution or reallocation of goods/services

Scarcity

• Luhmann (1993): scarcity means that access for one is at the cost of access for others

• then networks as a solution to scarcity change the relation between the haves and the have-nots

• but do not solve the problem of scarcity

Housing a good example

• No matter how intensive networking, the amount of flats did not increase

• Networks simply mean distribution according to other criteria than those officially proclaimed (one sort of inequality supplanted by another)

Little attention to inequality- why?

• Focus on/ interest in something else: showing that the Soviet/socialist society worked in a different manner than formally/officially proclaimed

• Wedel: The Private Poland• Grossman: The Second Economy of

the USSR• Sampson: The Informal Sector

in Eastern Europe

• Also: a tendency to argue that there was a “need” that “forced” “everyone” “all the time” to use networks

• emphasising the necessity of networks implicitly suggests their ubiquity and availability

• at least does not sensitise to look at unequal access

Part Two

Why has inequality been overlooked now (when it is perfectly possible to study

it)?

Inequality has not been much addressed – why?

• Networks often by-products of interest in something else and seldom a focus per se

• Another focus has been dominant: the past/present –dichotomy

• Disputes: do networks still matter or have they become obsolete?

• Opposite claims (Ledeneva vs. Sik & Wellman)

Something in the nature of the concept that causes neglect?

• Popular accounts: “the small world phenomenon” (“anyone can reach nearly anyone else”)

• The idea of reaching misses many points:– people’s networks may differ– knowing someone does not mean ability

or willingness to help

More explanations…

• Important discussions detailing networks:– literature on social capital– literature on survival or livelihood strategies

• Problematic if too ready-made answers are given in advance without empirical evidence:– why networks are used or why they work (as a

legacy of the past, for survival) or – that they work (as social capital)

• danger if networks cease to be an object of research and become an explanation instead

Neglected questions

• limits of networks (where they do not work, cannot be used, are not used)?

• unequal access to networks• the consequences of networks to

actors themselves, outsiders (those without networks), society at large?

• though such studies have begun to emerge

Part Three

How can a qualitative network approach illuminate the question

of inequality and class? Examples from my own research

Two sets of data, two data collection methods

• Secondary school teachers– Networks

constructed through actual interaction

– diary data during a two-week study period

– people with whom they had exchanged important information + other important people

• Factory workers

– Networks constructed through soliciting names

– 10 name-generators or questions on social support, exchange and interaction

Differentiated access to networks:

health care as an example• middle-class people (exemplified by

teachers) have far more medical professionals in their networks than e.g. factory workers (see also Brown & Rusinova)

• quantitative and qualitative difference• a generational perspective (“inherited

connections”, “dynasty of doctors”)• closer look on the formation of networks

(how are connections formed?)• the importance of place and migration

Formation of networks

• most relationships are formed somewhere or through someone

• opportunities to form connections are not equal

• education gives:– more skills in communication– more situations and settings in which to form

these connections

• the role of the Soviet state has been crucial

The role of the state in network formation

• how the state – provided – encouraged– approved of– was indifferent to– constrained

– or prohibited • certain occasions, places or

practices to initiate relationships

Examples

• Provided: relatively unsegregated neighbourhoods which offered an opportunity for classes to mix (incentive to mix existed)

• Constrained: certain forms of associations and public settings

• Was indifferent to: many private forms of sociability

• Restricted: free movement• Implications for class

Private celebrations imporant meeting places

• Birthdays, new year celebrations etc. functioned as important places in which to initiate new relationships

• Not likely to cross class boundaries?

Place and migration

• Networks affect migration, but how does migration affect networks?

• If Russia is a society of networks, then whether you are a migrant or not makes an immense difference

• Migration makes a rupture in networks, natives have better networks

• Migrant workers unprivileged in two ways

• Reluctance to move?

Comparative study of workers at the Kirov tractor factory

• Migrants in particular had very many workplace-related ties

• Explained by the Soviet context:• The crucial importance of the

factory (providing housing, spouse, neighbours, free-time activities)

• The lack of many public places available in the west (bars, pubs)

Consequences of migration to networks

• Social networks are closely connected to one single milieu: the workplace

• Socially and even occupationally homogenous

• Implications since there are few middle-class members in the networks (almost no medical professionals)

To conclude

• Who benefits from networks? – is a question that has been studied

relatively little – is a question that can be answered only

on a contextualised basis• Health care: second-generation

“intelligentsia” or “middle-class” respondents favoured, migrant workers least favoured

– is a complex and slightly dangerous question

Thank you for your attention!

• Please do not quote without contacting the author: anna-maria.salmi@helsinki.fi

• The presentation draws on – Salmi, Anna-Maria (2006): Social Networks and Everyday Practices in

Russia, Kikimora Publications, Helsinki.• See also:

– Markku Lonkila & Anna-Maria Salmi: The Russian Work Collective and Migration. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No. 5, pp. 681-703

– Salmi, Anna-Maria (2003): Health in Exchange: Teachers, Doctors, and the Strength of Informal Practices in Russia. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 109-130.

– Salmi, Anna-Maria (2000): Bonds, Bottles, Blat and Banquets. Birthdays and Networks in Russia. Ethnologia Europaea, Vol. 30, No. 1, ss. 31-44